IMPORTANT - Acland Report Consultation

[PeterVahry]

Less than a week now for submissions to be received on this subject.

It is vital that every four wheeler and user of the outdoors puts their thoughts on the subject to the panel. Written submissions can be done in several ways with the information found at http://www.walkingaccess.org.nz

Stop sitting on your hands and get a submission sent off!

[albundy]

Any ideas of when the rescheduled meeting for CHCH is or has it already happened.
Al

[PeterVahry]

Sorry, I have not heard what the fate of the SI meetings was. The process may get back on track after the weather improves but we must not assume that the submission deadline will be extended.

Put your thoughts in writing....no! not those thoughts! and get them sent off.

[wjw]

dont know if I should print this, but this came to me, all you have to do is copy/paste into your email and fill bits in:

Suggested Submission: Please modify as you see fit. Submissions can be
emailed, faxed, posted. But should be made by 30 June 2006

Your Address and Letterhead

To: John Acland, Chair and the
Walking Access Consultation Panel
Box 2526
Wellington
info@walkingaccess.org.nz
Fax 04 819 0745

Dear John and Panel

Submission to the Acland Walking Access Consultation Panel

This submission is made by * * * *. (Add details about your
Club/Organisation, or you as an individual, and why you have an interest in
better public access)

1 Need for a broader approach:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the need for better public
walking access to public lands, and to and along water bodies (Queen's
Chain).

We strongly support the importance of improving such access. But such access
only covers part of the recreational public's interest in maintaining and
improving public access to the Outdoors. It does not include for instance,
recreational access with a firearm or dog, or vehicular access eg bicycle,
4WD, quad. All these modes of access are statutorily allowed in various
situations, and their rights need to be recognised and protected as well.

2 Enhanced Public Recreational Access Rights - Support for all
recreationists:
All recreational statutory access rights need to be recognised and enhanced,
not just walking rights without a recreational firearm or dog to water
margins. The three most important initiatives to support and enhance all
statutory public access rights are:

1 A Parliamentary Commissioner for Public Access
2 A significant and contestable Public Access Enhancement Fund
3 Public access shown on paper topo maps as well as public land boundaries
4 Greater recognition of unformed public (legal) roads, and their valuable
use for public access and recreation
5 Relocate the Queens Chain to restore its access purpose, where it is no
longer on its water margins

These can and should provide for all outdoor recreational users' access
rights, including recreational hunters, 4WDers, quads and dog owners.

3 Essential for an Independent Commissioner: Prior to 1987, the Lands and
Survey Department provided paper cadastral (access and property) maps, and
acted to some extent to protect public access rights. Since L&S's demise,
there has been no government guardian of public accessways. These guardian
functions need to be restored by an independent Commission.

The departments/agencies with public access responsibilities see them as low
priority, and do very little about them. They are:
a) Department of Conservation (DOC): Responsible for marginal strips,
and public access to public conservation land. Does not even know where all
marginal strips are. Has no annual budget for access matters. Argues on
occasion its duty is to uphold private property owners rights. Also argued
against recording and showing marginal strips.
b) Land Information NZ (LINZ): Made an agreement with the previous
government in 1996, that its primary mapping priority was to service govt
departments, not the public. Abolished producing cadastral paper maps.
Doesn't show public land boundaries on topo maps, even though its
predecessor Land & Survey did. LINZ , as the lead agency in Tenure Review,
has been poor in providing public access in Reviews.
c) District Councils: Responsible for unformed public (legal) roads.
These are Crown owned, and Councils are supposed to look after them.
Hunters, 4WDers and cyclists or people with dogs have the right to pass and
repass on them, just as they do on formed public roads. Smaller less well
financed, or more farmer controlled, councils don't do their access duties
well.
d) Queen Elizabeth II National Trust: The Trust provides covenants,
almost always without public access. It is also farmer dominated. It is not
an appropriate agency for access.

Neither are the Ministries of Environment or Agriculture, or the Department
of Internal Affairs, or regional councils suitable. Given the poor access
performance of all these agencies, one of the key matters for a
Parliamentary Access Commissioner will be to get them to perform better.
Therefore he must be independent of them, not an office within one. Hence
also the need to report to Parliament.

4 Commissioner's Purposes: The Parliamentary Commissioner for Public Access
should be an official guardian of our public access heritage, ie
a) be an access ombudsman for citizen complaints about agencies not
carrying out their statutory access responsibilities
b) a leader in constructively improving public access matters
c) report to Parliament on public access matters
d) promote cost effective public access mapping
e) have regional representatives to engage and assist the public
locally with access issues
f) be a mediator, negotiator, facilitator with access agencies and
stakeholders on improving public access
g) encourage greater understanding and co-operation on access between
outdoor recreationists and rural landowners

5 Purpose of the Access Enhancement Fund: This would be disbursed by the
Public Access Commissioner, to projects, including access easements or
purchase, to cost effectively improve public access. The Fund and
Commissioner would also greatly benefit landowners.

6 Importance of Unformed Public (legal) roads: These are publicly owned
strips of land across private land. They are very valuable as they provide
an important access right and have recreational value in their own right -
that can be used as is when marked, or can be negotiated to gain more direct
or other access of the same quality, across private land. I/We strongly
oppose moves by some district councils to abolish such roads.

7 Realign the Queens' Chain: To restore its access purpose, where it is no
longer on its water margins

8 Need to reaffirm and protect New Zealand's proud heritage of publicly
owned public access strips: New Zealand's achievements with statutory
mechanisms for public access to the outdoors dates back to 1840. These
mechanisms are usually successful because they involve the very strong
rights of public ownership of land/strips eg marginal strips, public parks
and reserves with access rights, unformed and formed public roads, esplanade
reserves etc.

It is a superb heritage. We should all be proud of it and be prepared to
defend and improve it. But official indifference and neglect has made it
frayed at the edges. This is why an independent Commissioner, Access Fund,
and better access information on maps is urgently needed and will benefit
all access stakeholders.

Yours truly

Note: If you have examples where public access rights have not been observed
eg blocking unformed public roads, lack of info on marginal strips etc,
raise them in your letter.

[mike]

It is highly likely that the same people will be reading all the submissons and just changing the name and submitting the same thing will result iin t being added to the "already read pile" without it being re-read. They will just count it as a duplicate. Only use it as a suggestion as it states, but change it, only include the points you agree with and make it your own writing, change the layout, re-order the points, make it personal.

Mike

[SupraLux]

I have been in contact with the powers that be regarding the meeting in Christchurch, and was sent the following email. Good news for those who like meetings... its been re-scheduled:

Dear Steve

Thank you for your enquiry.

The Christchurch meeting has been rescheduled for Thursday, 13 July 2006. Sudima Grand
Chancellor (same place), but the time has been moved forward slightly to start at 6.00 pm.

The submission date has been moved back to 28 July 2006 to give those affected by the
delayed meetings time to prepare their submissions.

Your submission can be sent by email to this address or posted to P O Box 2526,
Wellington. Attention John Acland, Chairperson.

Regards
S A Harding
for Walking Access Consultation Panel

[wjw]

Sent my submission, just got:

The meetings in Christchurch, Geraldine and Greymouth are now scheduled
as follows:

Greymouth
11 July, 6-8 pm - Ashley Hotel - 74 Tasman Street
Geraldine
12 July, 5–7 pm - Presbyterian Hall, Wilson Street
Christchurch
13 July, 6–8 pm - Sudima Grand Chancellor, Cnr Memorial Ave and Orchard
Road

[albundy]

Who's going to thursday nghts meeting then I definitely going See ya there boys.
Al

[Goose]

I'm damn sure gona try and be there, got to make sure it doesn't interfere with wifeys schedule, shouldnt do, hell I'll just bring the kid if I have to!!!!!

I assume from previous posts my snipers rifle and mortar should be left at home?

I'll try convince niblik and h20lova to be there too, strength in numbers!!

Power to the people!!
Viva de la revolution!!!

Be good to meet some of you guys too

[albundy]

Can any CHCH people make it definitely as I now can't. Need to attend club meeting that night to fend off any anti ORE shit that may be coming our way. See thread about ashley river and my latest post.
Al

[Leithfield]

Sorry, have other commitments that night; however, have made a written submission and dispatched same.

[Goose]

Hi all, went to the meeting last night, not much to report, other than the members of the panel seem to have some good ideas, but contradicted themselves on what I think to be a major point.

The point I made to them was after one of the panel said that "an idea" was to have tracks "dedicated" to 4wd, mountain bikes, walkers etc, to which I responded "who decides, will they be suitable, and if you start segregating users, it wont stop". Then after some comments from others at the meeting, another panel member said that their mandate was "to ensure all current access remains as is..." which is in contrast to what the other guy said!

I also made the point that there are certain areas that can only be reached in a timely fashion in a 4wd, (rivers/lakes etc) and if they were closed to vehicles, they would be going against their own mandate! A few others, who appeared to be fishers/hunters/kayakers were also making very similar points. Like, aged people who can only access these areas if taken in a 4wd. Or kayakers who would have to carry their equipment 20k's to get to a river.

There didn't seem to be too much negative comment overall, just a couple of farmers, one who wanted much clearer signage for paper road users on his land, (he has people walking all over his farmlet because the fish and game sign makes no distinction of where the access actually is!) And another who essentially seemed to think all 4wders are "hoons". Other than that, it all seemed quite positive, most people were more concerned with things like information, or their rights/responsibilities as landowners. Another comment I heard alot, was that landowners usually dont mind you crossing their land, just bloody ask!!

I had to leave a bit early, so thats about what I got out of it, anyone else got further comment??

[PeterVahry]

This comment sent to a variety of Local Body people around NZ by this fellow from Pegusus Pay near CHCH. He's always claiming to be not anti 4WD its just he doesn't like other people using them!

Good Morning,

The Government's Walking Access Consultation Panel recently completed its series of public and stakeholders' meetings, held throughout the country.

The panel has an interesting focus on the use of unformed legal roads (commonly called paper roads) to facilitate access, substantially avoiding controversial issues attaching to the promotion of public access over private property.

The panel points out that, at the present time, cadastral information is publicly available from the LINZ database, and that information can be easily used by anybody with a GPS unit, to locate paper roads. It is widely assumed by recreational drivers that the common law right to use a paper road includes the right to use a motor vehicle, although I believe this has not been tested in a court.

Local authorities' ability to manage the use of paper roads appears restricted to the ability to close the road following an expensive and uncertain process.

If local authorities were empowered to manage paper roads, such roads could be seen as a priceless access resource available to all New Zealanders in perpetuity.

And if local authorities management of access was subject to the oversight of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Access, the whole thing just might work.

The LGNZ website (http://www.lgnz.co.nz) has a copy of their submission to the Walking Access Consultation Panel. It is worth reading it to see their views.

My reason for telling you all this is that the main focus of my presentation to the NRC National Workshop on Vehicles on Beaches was to illustrate that satisfactory management of the effects of motor vehicle use entails confining them to defined routes. This basic philosophy has been used in many parts of the world, and is indeed a fundamental plank of the driving standards advocated by "Tread Lightly", the US-based promoter of off road driving.

In the unformed legal roads network we have an already-defined set of routes.

By enabling local authorities to manage access on them, we have a management regime.

By requiring that the right to use a vehicle on a paper road is confined to the road, and that use of the land on either side of the road consitutes non-compliance, we have set driving standards.

And by requiring that the users enforce their own compliance to TLA requirements (because their hobby doesn't pay its own environmental costs at the very least it should carry out its own compliance monitoring) we have low compliance costs.

And why would the users ensure their own compliance?

Simply because a TLA wouldn't be able to approve new vehicle use on any unformed legal road in its district if it had non-complying existing vehicle use on unformed legal roads - remember use of the land on either side of the road constitutes non-compliance.

There's a high likelihood of driving enthusiasts armed with GPSs wandering around the countryside in search of paper roads to drive along unless the issue is regularised in some way.

Enabling TLAs to manage the use of unformed legal roads is a wonderful opportunity to make progress on the issues that led to NRC hosting last year's workshop.

I urge you to consider this and to make a submission - there is a form available on http://www.walkingaccess.org.nz

And any comments or suggestions would be welcome.

regards

Fred Murray

[access4WD]

The Terms of reference for the Walking Access group is specific only to walking access. Under the terms of reference given to them under the Cabinet paper they have no power to recommend beyond that.
The group have made it quite clear that is how they see it too.
Paul

[nuts]

the reason i started 4x4ing was coz i have too many injuries to walk long distances so i got a 4x4 now i can get to allot of places and enjoy the outdoors again but ppl denying rite of access is getting to be a pain so im all 4 fighting the ...lousy buggers ...

[access4WD]

Good call Nuts
In our lobby work we always refer to giving people with any form of disability a fair go. Many of us are like you Nuts, once fit and able to tramp, hunt, fish, take pictures or what ever in the great out of doors. 4WD access is the only way for many people to be able to do that, and we do fight hard and push that point. A good example of our work is in the Lake Heron situation. Many people are pushing that now this is a new conservation area that past 4WD access to Harrison’s Bight a favourite fishing spot should be stopped, we are working with DOC at local level to resolve this and we are fighting for continued access,and the key reason is because a lot of the fisher people who use that track are older people who like you Nuts are not as mobile as they were so why should they be cut out!
However the Walking Access group is not a target in that respect.
They appreciate the fact that a lot of outdoor recreational people cannot always walk long distance. Many unused paper roads create an opportunity to open up access that is currently locked, or unused because people do not know that they exist. Walking Access Group has identified this as an issue and will want to allow better access in total. But they also recognise that many paper roads cover terrain that is just not practical for a vehicle to travel on so hence they are calling for poled routes in those situations so that people can at the very least walk the routes. As I say their Terms of Reference do not allow specifically anything outside of walking so their overall report back to cabinet will be a narrow focus only on walking. We are planning a follow up so that a wider perspective can follow, but we need to follow due process and that is to allow the Walking Access Report to go forward and then a follow up is on the way. It is a step-by-step process in our view,
Again Nuts thanks for your input I found it very valuable.
Paul

[nuts]

glad 2 help so sent in the form